The state, acting as parens patriae, can make decisions regarding mental health treatment on behalf of one who is mentally incompetent to make the decision on his or her own behalf, but the extent of the state's intrusion is limited to reasonable and necessary treatment.

I'm sorry are we not reading the same quote? It clearly says ALL CHILDREN, which is illustrated over and over again in the cases the author references. Shall i add quotes of Judges flat out saying that they are using parens patriae to decide the best interest of the child? I used this specific quote for it's blatant reference to Birth Certificates.

It seems that no matter what evidence I use, you will not believe the truth.

The basic principles governing the custody of infants are beyond debate. The State, succeeding to the prerogative of the crown, acts as parens patriae.

Sometimes the power is exercised legislatively...sometimes constitutionally...but usually by the court.... Thus it is that agreements by parents as to the custody of their children are never final but subject always to the supervening power of the court. ~Justice James D. Hopkins

This case is in reference to a divorce agreement signed by both parties as to the custody of their children. The court can supervene their agreement and passes a judgment based upon what it believes is in the best interest of the child. A clear demonstration of the state as the father!

They could try and be refused, absent a court order. Harder to get a court order without jurisdiction.

I could be wrong. It is a much scarier proposition for me to be wrong. If we can not remove ourselves from jurisdiction, then we are owned by the US. We would be vassals and the US our lord. Our children would be our lords automatically as they were born to slaves.

No I like to believe we choose our lord rather then we have no choice.

You absolutely have a choice. No one is holding you in the United States. But if you choose to live under the jurisdiction of the United States-- by LIVING IN THE COUNTRY-- then-- *sigh* why do I have a feeling this is not going to get through?

To avoid being under the jurisdiction of the United States government, you will have to remove your physical person from that jurisdiction. Move. Choose which country you want to be part of.

It's like anything, if you don't like what is going on either leave or change it. However here in the US we have laws. Not all laws are created equal. You know what would be nice? It would be nice is there were no shitty parents in the world. It would be nice if there never had to be another adult who had to intervene for a child or for a mentally ill person. In divorce quite a few couples need another person to step in and decide where the kids should go because even an abusive toxic parent thinks they should be able to keep their kids. Kids need to have rights and the only way to ensure they are safe and do have a voice is to not leave 110% in the hands of the parents.

Try to argue that there never needs to be someone out there to intervene in an abusive, neglectful situation.

You absolutely have a choice. No one is holding you in the United States. But if you choose to live under the jurisdiction of the United States-- by LIVING IN THE COUNTRY-- then-- *sigh* why do I have a feeling this is not going to get through?

To avoid being under the jurisdiction of the United States government, you will have to remove your physical person from that jurisdiction. Move. Choose which country you want to be part of.

I don't think it is that easy. People cannot just up and move to another country. There is a lot of hoops and read tape to immigrating/becoming a permanent resident somewhere.

She isn't being held in the USA, but if she cannot get in anywhere else, then she sort is, by default.

Lat. "parent of his country." Used when the government acts on behalf of a child or mentally ill person. Refers to the "state" as the guardian of minors and incompetent people.

I have no problem with this. I know you do and that's fine. I'm saying I understand why it's in place. It wouldn't need to be if people could be decent. But they can't now can they?!

Legal term that defines the State's legal role as the guardian to protect the interests of children who cannot take care of themselves. For example, in an abuse or neglect case, this concept is used to explain the State's duty to protect minor children who lack proper care and custody from their parents.

Who else will stand up for the people/children who need someone to be their voice?

I don't think it is that easy. People cannot just up and move to another country. There is a lot of hoops and read tape to immigrating/becoming a permanent resident somewhere.

She isn't being held in the USA, but if she cannot get in anywhere else, then she sort is, by default.

I think the main point of the PP though is that the US doesn't intervene 'because you got a birth certificate'. The US intervenes because you live in its jurisdiction. If you don't want the US to be able to intervene, you can't simply choose not to get a birth certificate & expect them to stay out of your life. You'd need to move to a country where children don't have rights.

Akkarin, I think most of us agree that the state is "the father" in that it does have the power to make the ultimate decision (and whether that's a good or bad thing is irrelevant at this point in the conversation). What we are disagreeing with is your assertion that you can simply opt out by foregoing a birth certificate. Whether or not you have a birth certificate for your child, the state can & will intervene on your child's behalf if they (rightly or wrongly) feel it's necessary. I get why this can be scary, I really do. But I am worried about you operating under a delusion that you are protected in some way by simply not having a birth certificate.

Legal term that defines the State's legal role as the guardian to protect the interests of children who cannot take care of themselves. For example, in an abuse or neglect case, this concept is used to explain the State's duty to protect minor children who lack proper care and custody from their parents.

Who else will stand up for the people/children who need someone to be their voice?

I can understand why akkarin is annoyed by the concept of "state as father." My husband is my children's father - not the state, you know? The whole thing has the potential to be rife with issues.

I say potential, because the reality is for most people, the state will never act as father.

If you are being practical and weighing choices - you need to weigh getting a birth certificate (with the very remote possibility that having a birth certificate will cause your child problems) versus the very real difficulties and obstacles your child will have if they do not have a birth certificate.

Who do we owe our support to - our ideologies or children? For the most part, the answer is our children.

I can understand why akkarin is annoyed by the concept of "state as father." My husband is my children's father - not the state, you know? The whole thing has the potential to be rife with issues.

I say potential, because the reality is for most people, the state will never act as father.

If you are being practical and weighing choices - you need to weigh getting a birth certificate (with the very remote possibility that having a birth certificate will cause your child problems) versus the very real difficulties and obstacles your child will have if they do not have a birth certificate.

Who do we owe our support to - our ideologies or children? For the most part, the answer is our children.

There we have it, finally someone sees what I've been trying to say from the get go. The state is the father, not your husband. That is even the reason you have to ask the state permission via it's license to marry. Think about that. The state does not stop being your 'father' when you reach 18. It's role simply changes.

This is the very heart of my problem. I have two fathers, not three. One spiritual and one biological and I am not supposed to call 'oudius' (greek for no thing) father!

You all maybe correct as to birth certificates/SSN/Marriage Certificates not being what the state uses as jurisdiction. I was claiming that these things establish citizenship which establishes jurisdiction as the courts only have jurisdiction over US citizens (children). Simply being born in the US or even living in the US actually does not grant US jurisdiction. It is difficult for the US to prosecute foreigners temporarily living in the US, mostly if they commit a crime they are simply deported and left to their 'father' to discipline. If you really look at things, you can easily see the role the government plays in our life as our 'father'.

As to me not obtaining any of those documents affecting my child. Well, at the age of adulthood, my child can choose to supplant its biological father and claim its role as a citizen (child) of the US. It is more difficult to do, but it can be done.

Try to argue that there never needs to be someone out there to intervene in an abusive, neglectful situation.

Not arguing that we answer to nothing.

That aside, it is my contention that the US government via it's state proxies can be just as abusive as the parents who's custody they wish to supplant. For instance I have suffered first hand from the damages vaccines can cause. A boyfriend of my mother's was abused by a large portion of the 17 foster families he was given custody to. In the supreme wisdom of the state, custody is removed from one abusive situation just to be moved to a state 'approved' abusive situation.

The standard of public education is failing (at an avg cost of 10,000 a student in Ohio), focusing more on what some call socialization and less on academics. False truths are taught in schools for one reason or another. Columbus discovered America , often taught in elementary school is blatantly incorrect. The man never set foot on American soil. As to the discovery; Vikings, native Americans, and even Hebrews made it to this soil long before Columbus. Slavery was the cause of the civil war, hardly.

So it is I who wants to protect my child from the states abuse, which I and many others have suffered because the State believes it is doing to right thing.

Obviously nobody should ever suffer. However you have to think of the ones that don't have a voice. Like my uncle Mario, he was not properly taken care of by a family member and she left him in his bed for months at a time. The family member refused to let us take him out of her home. She was getting his SSI. We had to go to court over it and he was taken out of her home immediately. Who else would intervene for us and for him? Should we have stormed her doors and taken him by force?

I don't see this issue in black in white. It's not completely good or completely bad. It's necessary though.

Obviously nobody should ever suffer. However you have to think of the ones that don't have a voice. Like my uncle Mario, he was not properly taken care of by a family member and she left him in his bed for months at a time. The family member refused to let us take him out of her home. She was getting his SSI. We had to go to court over it and he was taken out of her home immediately. Who else would intervene for us and for him? Should we have stormed her doors and taken him by force?

I don't see this issue in black in white. It's not completely good or completely bad. It's necessary though.

That is the nature of the beast. Funny enough, according to the dissertation, Parens Patriae really did only cover indigents until a misprint occurred in the 17th century. From that point on, Parens Patriae included infants...which morphed into all children.

The system failed to save my cousin from her mother whom prostituted her out for drugs; amongst other things. My mother suffered sexually at the hands of my grandfather and was physically/emotionally abused by my grandmother; yet she loved them to the day they died. Still, no one did a thing. As you said, family members should intervene. If family is able to look out for one another, then government does not need to step in. Family, is one thing that is deteriorating as a result of our growing dependence on the state instead of each other. Ultimately though, it is our choices that are to blame. It would seem a certain amount of moral decay occurs when we come together in mass gatherings, egging each other on. It is no wonder the elite of the world have their primary residences out in the country side away from it all; as to avoid being pulled down into the abyss. Excuse my poetical musings as nothing is that bad.

I question things, because I have suffered for not questioning them. Going along with status quo certainly hasn't benefited me. History will show, over and over, that governments are not to be blindly trusted because they are ran by humans; which are sinful creatures. That is the beauty of what the American system was supposed to be. The ability of oversight from each branch and an election system to ensure proper representation. We, the people, got lazy and left our governments unchallenged, buying into it's propaganda machine. Leaving it in the hands of individuals that are easily bought off and persuaded to vote a certain way. As I've said before, Democrat or Republican, doesn't matter it is the same thing.

All this could change if people opened their eyes to reality and stopped watching 'reality' TV. We should be watching the government and not each other. Latin should be a required subject in school as you cannot truly comprehend law until you understand Latin. Contract Law, which is the very base of just about every aspect of what we do should also be required. As people do not know what they do.

The PEN is certainly mightier than the sword! The sword can only physically kill you, but the pen can make you a slave.

That's a great site. You can search the Internet for more. There's also a way to take back the bond that the government has levied against you. I don't know what to think about our country anymore honestly...